PITTSBURGH: Duncan replies to charges of abandonment of communion with Episcopal Church
Episcopal News Service. March 17, 2008 [031708-02]
Mary Frances Schjonberg
Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan has denied that he has abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church, a charge certified by the church-wide Title IV Review Committee.
"I state that I consider myself 'fully subject to the doctrine, discipline and worship of this Church,'" Duncan wrote in a March 14 letter to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and posted on the Pittsburgh diocese’s website.
The Presiding Bishop’s Office confirmed that she has received a copy of the letter.
Duncan's response lists eight ways he says show that he is "fully subject to the doctrine, discipline and worship of this Church." Among them is the statement that he has "made no submission to any other authority or jurisdiction."
Duncan, who is moderator of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes, also noted that he has "gathered Anglican fragments together from one hundred and thirty-five years of Episcopal Church division, vastly increasing understanding and cooperation, though preserving the jurisdictional independence of all."
In late September, Duncan chaired a meeting of a related organization, the Common Cause Council of Bishops during which the group said it would spend what was then the next 15 months developing "an Anglican union," which they anticipate will be recognized by some Anglican Communion Primates and provinces. Information about the actions taken at this meeting was included in the material submitted to the Title IV Review Committee, the committee of bishops, priests and laity that considers allegations of abandonment of communion.
Jefferts Schori had asked Duncan in a January 15 letter to respond to the Title IV Review Committee certification in December that he had violated Title IV, Canon 9 of the Episcopal Church's Constitution and Canons by "an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline or Worship of this Church."
Jefferts Schori told Duncan in the letter that she sought the canonically required permission from the House's three senior bishops with jurisdiction to inhibit him, based on the certification, from the performance of any episcopal, ministerial or canonical acts.
"On 11 January 2008 they informed me that such consents would not be given at this time by all three bishops," Jefferts Schori wrote.
The Presiding Bishop wrote that she would still "welcome a statement by you within the next two months providing evidence that you once more consider yourself fully subject to the doctrine, discipline and worship of this Church."
Canon IV.9.2 provides an opportunity for the bishop accused of abandonment to make a "good faith denial that the Bishop made the declarations or committed the acts relied upon in the certificate."
Jefferts Schori noted in her January letter that the issue could not come before the House of Bishops at its March 7-13, 2008 meeting at Camp Allen, Texas, because of the time limits stated in Canon IV.9 "but will come before the House at the next meeting thereafter."
Diocese of North Carolina Bishop Michael Curry, one of the bishops who briefed the media on the March 12 sessions of the House of Bishops meeting, told ENS that very few of the bishops had read the lengthy certification of the charges against Duncan. Hence, he said, Jefferts Schori suggested that the material be sent to all bishops to read.
Curry said the Presiding Bishop then agreed that her office would poll the bishops about the advisability of convening a special meeting of the House in May 2008 or whether to consider the matter at the House's already-scheduled September meeting. Curry predicted that the answer to the question may be based in large part on the logistics of coordinating all the bishops' calendars to find a meeting time in May.
Also on March 14 Duncan's attorney, John H. Lewis Jr., wrote to David Beers, the chancellor to the Presiding Bishop, saying that Duncan's statement of the same day should close the matter. In the letter, Lewis also argues that the process cannot continue because consent needed to inhibit Duncan has not been obtained.